leaders of both or all political parties. No Englishman can fail to remark how small a space is given to the proceedings of Congress in the American newspapers. Among ourselves, in spite of the diurnal jeremiads on the decadence of Parliament from quarters which cannot be pronounced disinterested, there can be little doubt that public interest in Parliamentary proceedings has increased and not diminished in recent years. The copious reports in the great provincial newspapers are only a sign of this increasing attention of the public to the doings of the Legislature. It was suggested in the House of Commons recently that people in America cared little about Congress, because they were absorbed in the proceedings of their Home Legislatures. But State Assemblies fare little better at the hands of the reporter than Congress does. The true explanation is, we suspect, that given by Mr. Wilson. He says nobody in America reads the Congressional reports, because they are not interesting. Americans who never trouble themselves about the "Congressional Record" eagerly read the reports of an English Parliamentary debate. A great speech by Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Bright will be printed next morning in the journals of the Pacific slope with a fulness of detail denied

*It is only fair to say, that the habit of strict reporting is generally less prevalent in America than it is in this country. The interviewer and the descriptive reporter have corrupted the historical faculty of the newspaper. Even in the report of a law case it is a rare thing to find a plain and exact account of what was said and done.

to American statesmen of corresponding position and authority. The "Congressional Record" itself is a testimony to the deterioration of Congress as a debating assemblage. The speeches which it contains have not necessarily been delivered. By permission of the House they may be taken as spoken, and duly printed and circulated. Some years ago it appears that even the consent of the House was not required, until the appearance of a poem among the debates created a scandal which had to be abated by a somewhat stricter rule.

Another point on which Mr. Wilson lays great stress is the absence of party conflict within the House. The disintegration of the House into committees destroys it as an arena for party warfare. The committees which shape the legislation of Congress are made up of members of both parties, and their recommendations are in each case the recommendations of the committee, and not merely of a majority therein. Consequently "very few of the measures which come before Congress are party measures. They are, at any rate, not brought in as party measures. They are endorsed by select bodies of members chosen with a view to constituting an impartial board of examination for the judicial and thorough consideration of each subject of legislation. No member of one of these committees is warranted in revealing any of the disagreements of the committee-room, or the proportions of the votes there taken; and no colour is meant to be given to the supposition that the

reports made are intended to advance any party interest. Indeed, only a very slight examination of the measures which originate with the committees is necessary to show that most of them are framed with a view to securing their easy passage by giving them as neutral and inoffensive a character as possible." The contrast between this cessation of party warfare in Congress and the state of war which is the state of nature in Parliament is too obvious to need pointing out. But it contrasts also with the extreme activity and the high organisation of party forces outside Congress. The party cleavage runs right down through all the degrees of government, National, State, Local, and Municipal, and the same election, and the same ballot-paper, as a rule, express the choice of the elector for Congressmen, for State legislators, for county clerks, and town-councillors. Neither in perfection of machinery nor in scope of action can English parties compare with American. The severity of party bonds may not be in all respects a blessing, but it must be regarded as one of the great "centripetal forces" of a system of Home Rule government. The curious thing is, that the spirit of party which has brought Congress together appears to fade away within the walls of Congress itself. According to Mr. Wilson, it is kept effectively alive by what he calls the "legislative caucus or private meeting of members. The essence of a "caucus," as the word is often used in the United States, appears to be a secret conclave of persons constituting a section of some public body. They

meet in private to decide what their public action is to be, to compose their differences beforehand. The principle of the system is that the minority yields to the majority, so that the whole mass can move and act solidly when the crisis comes. They are to be found everywhere-in the State Legislatures, and in the Conventions of parties, as well as in Congress. They have their counterpart in those private combinations of shareholders which are formed for the purpose of obtaining control of a corporation. In Congress they are regarded by Mr. Wilson as an antidote to the disintegrating effect of the committee system. "It is designed to supply the cohesive principle which the multiplicity and mutual independence of the committees so powerfully tend to destroy. Having no Prime Minister to confer with about the policy of the Government, as they see members of Parliament doing, our Congressmen confer with each other in caucus." The sanction of the caucus is the force of party spirit outside the House. "The man who disobeys his party caucus is understood to disavow his party allegiance altogether, and to assume that dangerous neutrality which is so apt to degenerate into mere caprice. Any individual, or any minority of weak numbers or small influence, who has the temerity to neglect the decisions of the caucus is sure, if the offence be often repeated, or even once committed upon an important issue, to be read out of the party without chance of reinstatement."

Again, it is justly said that the committee system fosters the practice of "lobbying." A small group conducting its proceedings in private is necessarily more easily influenced by the professional promoters of bills than the public assembly could possibly be. The "lobby" appears to be an inseparable appendage of all American Legislatures. It combines the functions of the Parliamentary agent with others of a less legitimate character.* It is the least pleasant feature of the American system, and one which the admirers of the system as a whole may be excused for saying as little as possible about.

From the point of view of the reformer, it may be doubted whether a system apparently designed to facilitate legislative work does not impede progress in great matters. Great legislative movements have certainly been less common, and, one may presume, less necessary in the United States than in this country, but they are probably more difficult to carry through. The main difficulty in this country is to get the ear of the public, but that is always ready to listen to the great party leaders. But in the United States there are, as we have seen, no great party leaders, in our sense of the term. There is no momentum of public opinion telling for a particular measure, and operating directly upon the members of the Legislature. It would not be difficult to name important measures of reform the necessity of which has been long acknowledged,

* The absence of any distinction between public and private Bills is largely responsible for the existence of the "lobby.”